SC - Myths -- Taillevent
James Prescott
prescotj at telusplanet.net
Wed Jan 24 16:42:00 PST 2001
Thorvald here:
Speaking of myths that may need repeated debunking, a month ago
there were some posts to this list suggesting that Taillevent was
knighted. I did not see any debunking post to follow.
So I guess I should post one.
I also address some other apparent myths concerning Taillevent.
I would be delighted if it were otherwise, but I do not believe
that Taillevent was knighted.
I invite correction.
1) He almost certainly began life as a commoner. Entering a
kitchen as a kitchen boy at perhaps age 12 would have been
almost unthinkable for someone of gentle or noble birth.
Pichon and Vicaire give no information about his parentage.
2) Pichon and Vicaire (1892 but still cited by Scully and Luce
who would presumably know better than I if there were more
recent information of significance) do not refer to a knighting,
nor do they anywhere give him the title of knight. In signing
documents Taillevent did not give himself any gentle or knightly
or noble title.
3) He was appointed "Sergeant at Arms" to the king for some short
number of years in his middle life. It was a post with either
actual duties, or perhaps by that era with purely nominal
duties (he was, after all, in his mid fifties). In either
case it was clearly a reward for long and faithful service.
4) It is clear that for the last two decades of his life he was
no longer a sergeant at arms, though he was appointed to various
high offices related to the king's kitchen. Another person
is referred to in a quote in Pichon and Vicaire as 'formerly
sergeant at arms' which clearly indicates that it was an
honourable office but not a permanent degree.
5) While he was a sergeant at arms he was entitled to wear armour
and carry weapons. He had his tomb facade carved at that time
depicting himself in armour flanked by his first and second
wives. I _speculate_ that he chose to have his tomb facade
done at this time, decades before his death, because he knew
that he would not again have the right to be so depicted.
6) He is shown in armour, with a dagger and a sword and a mace
(symbol of the office of sergeant at arms) at his belt, and
with rowel spurs on his heels. There is no chain of fealty
depicted, though the absence does not prove that he wasn't a
knight.
7) The shield he carries displays a device. I assume that this
indicates that he was entitled to bear heraldic arms at this
date, or earlier, though there is no direct evidence that he
was granted this right. If so, this would could imply that he
had probably been elevated to the gentry.
8) On the tomb facade his first wife (but not his second) is
referred to as 'demoiselle', which suggests that she might
herself have been of the gentry. She also appears to be
better dressed and coiffed than his second wife, which may
or may not signify a social difference.
9) I _speculate_ that Taillevent was raised to the gentry when
he was appointed sergeant at arms to the king. My reasoning
is that the king would have wished that all of his sergeants
at arms be of at least gentle rank, especially if they had
the duty of close attendance on the king, or had any powers
of arrest.
10) The OED, in talking of the sergeants at arms to the English
king, says that at one stage they had to be of knightly rank
(they were at that stage combined bodyguard to the king and
royal police officers). Perhaps someone has interpreted this
to signify that all sergeants at arms of any country and any
date must have been knights, which clearly is not the case.
11) The older (1938) Larousse Gastronomique in English translation
does not, contrary to some comments, refer to Taillevent as
having been knighted and/or ennobled. Perhaps the recent
edition, which I do not have, does. Can anyone quote from
the recent edition?
12) There has been mention that Siméon Luce refers to Taillevent
being knighted or ennobled, but I can find no indication that
he does.
13) There has been mention that Taillevent was given a property
(by implication by the king, by implication yielding revenue,
and by implication to accompany an elevation in rank), but I
can find no indication in Pichon and Vicaire that he was given
any such a property.
14) There has been mention of Taillevent being a 'squire', with
the implication that this was either related to the military
squire, or was the equivalent of 'Esquire' signifying gentle
rank.
Pichon and Vicaire make it clear that 'squire of the kitchen'
(Taillevent was in his mid sixties when he is first mentioned
as having this title) was a title for a cupbearer (presumably
with other duties), apparently outranking the cooks, certainly
an honour but unrelated to matters military and no indication
of gentle rank. Taillevent was earlier 'squire of the mansion'
and later cook to the Dauphin when he was about 40.
It is nothing more than a fancy title for a senior servant.
Another example of title inflation.
Again, I invite correction.
- --
All my best,
Thorvald Grimsson / James Prescott <prescotj at telusplanet.net> (PGP user)
More information about the Sca-cooks
mailing list